Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 450
  1. #251
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,051
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver
    if follows the introduction of processed oils and higher carbohydrate consumption.
    Oils, yes; carbohydrate, not really. Take a look at figures 11-13 here http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publication...y1909-2000.pdf (I think they are not correcting for spoilage and waste, because absolute numbers look very high, but the relative structure should be correct.)

    Per capita carbohydrate in 1965 was substantially down compared to 1910, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of diet. The biggest change with regard to carbohydrates was the reduction in grains. In 1900 the diet was primarily grain-based. 57% of calories as carbohydrates, 39% of calories from grains, 30 grams of fiber per day. By 1965 grain consumption was basically cut in half, fiber fell to 20 g/day, fat and sweeteners went up 20%. For 2000 they have 50% of calories as carbohydrates and 24% of calories from grains.

    Since 1965 the story is basically about eating more and more of everything (absolute increases on the order of 20% in 30 years in almost every category.)

    P.S. Do you know what common food item is the most expensive (as in, overpriced) in the United States, compared to the rest of the world? It's loaf bread. 100 years ago it was a dietary staple and it was selling close to cost. At some point people probably decided that it's too boring, and it turned into a specialty item with fat price margins. Compared to 100 years ago, wheat is substantially cheaper (adjusted for inflation), but bread is more expensive.
    The U.S. has very efficient food industry and a lot of stuff is cheaper here than overseas. But bread costs $2+ per pound here and $0.30..$0.50 per pound in other, "less developed" countries.

    One other food item that had a similar fate is potatoes. 100 years ago Americans were eating half a pound of baked/boiled potatoes per person, per day. Today, if we exclude chips and french fries, they eat only 1/4'th of that amount. Accordingly, as demand for potatoes fell, potatoes themselves got a lot more expensive. You used to be able to buy 10 pounds of potatoes for the price of a pound of bananas or half a dozen eggs. Today potatoes are more expensive than bananas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver View Post
    So your cholesterol numbers are a spec high... is this a reason to take a drug that will increase your chances of developing diabetes and experiencing serious side effects when there is no evidence to show that statin use prevents heart attacks. Maybe you are supposed to have a slightly higher lipid level in your system and it has been shown that higher cholesterol levels benefit us as we get older. Our brains need healthy fats.
    You might want to check out figure 1 in this article http://jn.nutrition.org/content/128/2/444S.long

    Boneless skinless chicken breasts are just 1.84lb??
    Didn't think it was that cheap?
    Not 1.84, but I occasionally see them for 1.99 and they are almost always available around here for 2.49.
    Last edited by hamster; 12-08-13 at 05:11 PM.

  2. #252
    Senior Member wolfchild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mississauga/Toronto, Ontario canada
    My Bikes
    I have 3 singlespeed/fixed gear bikes
    Posts
    2,284
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's true that the Kitavan Diet is very high in carbs but all of their carbs are healthy carbs which come from sweet potatoes, taro and yams with some tropical fruits, their diet is also very high in saturated fat from coconuts and seafood...Compare that to the modern American high carb diet where all of the carbs come from breakfast cereals, white wheat flour, refined sugar, cookies ,donuts, cakes, energy bars, soda pop, fruit juices, together with industrial polyunsaturated vegetable oils. There is a huge difference between the two diets and the effects that it has on the human body. The results speak for themselves, Kitavans are free from heart disease, diabetes, obesity, no need for them to take statin drugs, their food is their preventitive medicine

  3. #253
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    From a study of various populations worldwide, Ancel Keys reported in 1957 that...

    That's the point I stopped reading.
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  4. #254
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfchild View Post
    It's true that the Kitavan Diet is very high in carbs but all of their carbs are healthy carbs which come from sweet potatoes, taro and yams with some tropical fruits, their diet is also very high in saturated fat from coconuts and seafood...Compare that to the modern American high carb diet where all of the carbs come from breakfast cereals, white wheat flour, refined sugar, cookies ,donuts, cakes, energy bars, soda pop, fruit juices, together with industrial polyunsaturated vegetable oils. There is a huge difference between the two diets and the effects that it has on the human body. The results speak for themselves, Kitavans are free from heart disease, diabetes, obesity, no need for them to take statin drugs, their food is their preventitive medicine
    Exactly.

    There was a statement that no populations ate strictly meat. I mentioned the Inuit, because that is pretty much their diet. I threw the Kitavan example in there to show that I was open minded enough to see that there were other ways of getting good results. Both cases studies are very important and interesting. The novelty of each was lost.
    Last edited by Fat Boy; 12-08-13 at 10:06 PM.
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  5. #255
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post
    Small differences in genetics can have large effects. We share 50% of our dna with cabbage.
    Might I also point out that the kitavin diet is by no measure low carb. Also you could point out the average lifespan of the inuits. There is much more to nutrition than just heart disease
    OK, let's look at a timeline here.

    The big evolutionary reset button was punched about 65 million years ago when an asteroid (maybe) killed the dinosaurs. At that point, small mammals had a series of advantages that allowed them to be successful. The first of the '****' genus was **** Habilis, which showed up about 2.3 million years go. At that point, primates had already been through maybe 4.5 million years of existence.

    Humans came across the Bering Strait into modern Alaska/Canada about 12,000 years ago. It has not been 'millenia'. In evolutionary terms, it's been a mouse fart. Any genetic adaptations that the Inuit have, you and I have as well.


    *Funny you can't write 'h-o-m-o'
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  6. #256
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by phoebeisis View Post
    Plant proteins-not as valuable or as high Biological value as animal proteins-incomplete if you use a single plant based protein-hence beans and rice
    peanuts and bread
    Hard to beat milk as a food if you are short of money-maybe eggs too
    20 cents/egg- 6 grams or so of protein high biological value protein.
    Of these protein sources, eggs are really the only one I would consider high quality. You can survive on beans and rice or peanut butter and bread, but thrive? Well, opinions vary.

    One of the problems with plant protein sources is that they come bundled with a lot of carbs. Peanuts aren't too bad on the carb side, but bread, which you need to fill out the protein profile, is nearly all carbs. If you're trying to get an 'athletic' dose of protein during the day, you're eating a massive whack of carbs. There's also the issue that only a portion of the carbs you eat from something like peanuts is actually bioavailable. In the case of peanuts, it's on the order of 52%. Wheat is 42%. So if you're looking at a peanut butter sandwich that has 15g of protein, your body is only going to be able to extract maybe 7-8g of protein out of it. For reference, a whole egg is 100% and beef is 92% bioavailable. These things are not all created equal. Source
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  7. #257
    Wheelsuck Fat Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,159
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac View Post
    but simply 'What is "best"?'
    - Is it weight loss?
    - Is it cancer reduction?
    - Is it risk markers like LDL and HDL?
    - is it insulin levels?
    - Is it mortality?
    - Is it overall health and well being? (and what IS overall health and well-being?)


    And that is pretty much the criticism that Campbell raises with all the different studies proving that 'this nutrient' is better than 'that nutrient'. He says you need to look at the overall affect using the overall diet...
    I agree on the bias towards overall health, whatever the hell that means. I genuinely feel that if you control your insulin levels, then you go a long way towards covering your bases with all the other things that you mentioned.

    I read Campbell's _Whole_. To me it just wasn't a very compelling. The irony is that I would credit his book with pushing me more towards my diet now than the diet he champions.
    Austin doesn't have hippies. They have slightly rebellious Methodists. - Racer Ex

  8. #258
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,132
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Hamster is a little like me. I've been doing boards and lists since there's been an internet. What always happens on these things is that a few dedicated outliers take over the conversation and try to bend it their way. If one is writing for the record, as here, one needs to keep correcting that record according to GAR. It might be good to have a look at what public health professionals recommend circa 2013, sort of like looking at (ducks) IPCC reports:
    http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Gettin...5_Article.jsp#
    As you make daily food choices, base your eating pattern on these recommendations:
    • Choose lean meats and poultry without skin and prepare them without added saturated and trans fat.
    • Select fat-free, 1 percent fat, and low-fat dairy products.
    • Cut back on foods containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils to reduce trans fat in your diet.
    • Cut back on foods high in dietary cholesterol. Aim to eat less than 300 milligrams of cholesterol each day.
    • Cut back on beverages and foods with added sugars.
    • Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. Aim to eat less than 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day. Learn more about limiting sodium.
    • If you drink alcohol, drink in moderation. That means one drink per day if you’re a woman and two drinks per day if you’re a man.
    • Follow the American Heart Association recommendations when you eat out, and keep an eye on your portion sizes.
    http://nutrition.stanford.edu/documents/Plant_based.pdf
    Background: A variety of food combinations can be used to meet national U.S. guidelines for obtaining 30% of energy or less from total fat and 10% of energy or less from saturated fat.
    Conclusions: Previous national dietary guidelines primarily emphasized avoiding saturated fat and cholesterol; as a result, the guidelines probably underestimated the potential LDL cholesterol-lowering effect of diet. In this study, emphasis on including nutrient-dense plantbased foods, consistent with recently revised national guidelines, increased the total and LDL cholesterol-lowering effect of a low-fat diet.
    If you eat like this, don't smoke, and don't have genetic anomalies, you can avoid ever taking statins.

  9. #259
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    38,868
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
    Primarily, doctor's records.

    You want to know a place a long time ago that it was a problem? Ancient Egypt, particularly among royalty. They ate a lot of grain/honey and they paid the price for it.
    But how many people would have gone to the doctor 100 years ago ... 200 years ago ... 300 years ago ... ???

    I suspect records back then may have been a little sketchy.

  10. #260
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    38,868
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post
    Some things are just bad for you, no one is denying that, but carbs are not bad. Saying they are is simply not true. Or if they were we should be seeing mass deaths of professional athletes when they reach 50 years. The carbo loading pro cyclists do before races is insane for a normal person but they don't drop dead like flies because of it.
    Proteins are not bad either but one should not eat them too much either. Same with fat. No carbs diet has the balance skewed in one direction where the sedentary eat choclate all day is skewed in the other.

    Balance is everything. Eat something too much and it's going to be bad for you. Too much meat? Higher bowel cancer risk. Too much carbs? diabetes. Too much protein? Risk for kidney problems especially on the onset of diabetes when people go for extreme diets in order to get healthy. Glocose in urine and too much protein is not a good combination. Too much veggies? ...Umm... I don't think you can eat too much veggies but eating too much can deprive you from fat/protein/carb intake otherwise necessary.

    Too much water for crying out loud. Too much water will kill you! Everything in excess is bad for you but if everything is ingested in moderation one should stay free of the most common nutrition caused diseases. Or not. thats genetics and luck for you.
    +1

    Absolutely!!

  11. #261
    New Orleans
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,478
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
    Of these protein sources, eggs are really the only one I would consider high quality. You can survive on beans and rice or peanut butter and bread, but thrive? Well, opinions vary.

    One of the problems with plant protein sources is that they come bundled with a lot of carbs. Peanuts aren't too bad on the carb side, but bread, which you need to fill out the protein profile, is nearly all carbs. If you're trying to get an 'athletic' dose of protein during the day, you're eating a massive whack of carbs. There's also the issue that only a portion of the carbs you eat from something like peanuts is actually bioavailable. In the case of peanuts, it's on the order of 52%. Wheat is 42%. So if you're looking at a peanut butter sandwich that has 15g of protein, your body is only going to be able to extract maybe 7-8g of protein out of it. For reference, a whole egg is 100% and beef is 92% bioavailable. These things are not all created equal. Source
    Which is why I specifically mentioned EGGs in the kidney/liver disease diet.They are very high Biological value
    Plant proteins-AREN'T- they require you metabolize and eliminate more somewhat toxic nitrogen molecules because they provide the "wrong for animals" mix of amino acids.
    A Plant protein diet can be adequate-but once agriculture became developed -and poor folks lived on plant foods-prople became shorter-less healthy. Strictly Plant based diets-tricky to deliver various micronutrients and tricky to get the right amino acid mix.Not impossible-just takes some doing.

  12. #262
    Senior Member elcruxio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    mordor
    My Bikes
    2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
    Posts
    709
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
    OK, let's look at a timeline here.

    The big evolutionary reset button was punched about 65 million years ago when an asteroid (maybe) killed the dinosaurs. At that point, small mammals had a series of advantages that allowed them to be successful. The first of the '****' genus was **** Habilis, which showed up about 2.3 million years go. At that point, primates had already been through maybe 4.5 million years of existence.

    Humans came across the Bering Strait into modern Alaska/Canada about 12,000 years ago. It has not been 'millenia'. In evolutionary terms, it's been a mouse fart. Any genetic adaptations that the Inuit have, you and I have as well.


    *Funny you can't write 'h-o-m-o'
    12 000 years is plenty of time to get some adaptation and acclimatization going on. For some minor changes a leap in generations is enough (for example your grandparents went through famine, you might have negative effects in you metabolism)

  13. #263
    Senior Member GeorgeBMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
    Posts
    1,796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
    ...

    If one is writing for the record, as here, one needs to keep correcting that record according to GAR. It might be good to have a look at what public health professionals recommend circa 2013, .... .
    Good points... But:

    It seems that the opinion of the 'public health professionals' is not held in very high regard anymore. In fact, it has seemingly become irrelevant.

    That is, it seems the public (aka USDA) has tried to hold the middle ground -- but it has been denigrated and attached by BOTH sides for 15 or 20 years now. And, unfortunately, it has been unable and unwilling to defend itself. It just makes minor tweaks here and there and republishes the variation on a theme...

    Perhaps the best example of this is the "Great Nutrition Debate" hosted by the USDA 13 years ago. In it they essentially threw up their hands saying: "OK, we give up -- let the "Experts" debate their side and see who wins". Unfortunately, nobody won -- and the Great debate continues with one side denigrating the facts and theories put forth by the other side.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feCpP40ZHqI

    Unfortunately, the loser in this debate is the public who is being fed highly conflicting and contradictory information on what they 'should' be eating. The result of this is not only threads such as this one -- but a continuation of poor eating habits that result in increased chronic diseases and a health care system that cannot afford to treat all of the sick people that the poor diets are generating.

    I think that this rather sad situation is likely to continue until some impartial and well funded agency is able to do real research into the various claims and theories that are bandied about and actually come up with real answers...

    For myself: I am angry that I had to take it on myself to figure out what is a healthy diet and what isn't. I did my research and made my decisions... Was I right? The 'other side' says I am dead wrong and back their opinion with studies that I am not able to refute with my limited resources...
    ... After the many billions that have been spent on nutrition research, we --the people -- deserve better...
    --------------------------------------
    bikes: 1992 Cannondale R500, 2012 Trek DS 8.5, 2008 LeMond Poprad

  14. #264
    Senior Member elcruxio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    mordor
    My Bikes
    2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
    Posts
    709
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by phoebeisis View Post
    Which is why I specifically mentioned EGGs in the kidney/liver disease diet.They are very high Biological value
    Plant proteins-AREN'T- they require you metabolize and eliminate more somewhat toxic nitrogen molecules because they provide the "wrong for animals" mix of amino acids.
    A Plant protein diet can be adequate-but once agriculture became developed -and poor folks lived on plant foods-prople became shorter-less healthy. Strictly Plant based diets-tricky to deliver various micronutrients and tricky to get the right amino acid mix.Not impossible-just takes some doing.
    People became unhealthy because of monotonous diet, not because of plant based diet. Of course the lack of protein had much to do with it, but had they had the multitude of plant based foods the average westerner is able to acquire throughout the year (high in protein like beans, nuts etc) they would most likely have been much healthier. But then again a moot point since they lacked meat also and were in general badly nourished in worst case scenarios.

  15. #265
    Long Distance Cyclist Machka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    I ride where the thylacine roamed!
    My Bikes
    Lots
    Posts
    38,868
    Mentioned
    34 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac View Post
    It seems that the opinion of the 'public health professionals' is not held in very high regard anymore. In fact, it has seemingly become irrelevant.
    Maybe you need to look at the research and opinions from other countries.

    For example, now and then I watch a weight loss show set in New Zealand. The diet and nutrition advice the show's dietician provides is really good ... all about smaller portions, balance, and a variety of good foods (lean meats, lots and lots of veggies, whole grains, nuts, good oils, cutting out alcohol and sugar, drinking more water, etc.)

  16. #266
    I STILL miss East Hill :) Rollfast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Where my bike's at
    My Bikes
    a lot
    Posts
    2,583
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't normally even get milk often to start with...it's not something I've normally bought for the high price and I tended to use powdered nonfat for cereal and cooking

    I've also kept the cheese intake low for quite some time.

    Man you are confusing me and my FNP tells me to watch a bunch of the stuff you say to go for...

    (She's overweight from 10 years of sacrificing for a bunch of patients herself and my late grandpa that had the kidney problems was no small man in overalls)...

    One thing I really can't afford to do is help Norman Greenbaum's retirement fund...he already has Jesus, remember. Pigs ain't cheap to fry *microwave no more.

    My meats are generally limited to tuna, frozen hamburger patties, chicken and occasionally something else and I eat green beans, red kidney/Great Northern/black beans, canned and all drained because I can't cook dry beans worth beans, canned tomatoes, mushrooms.

    At the moment by Schwinn is still chained and hasn't met the snow because they sent the LBS a rear rim for a multispeed instead of a coaster brake and the rear is the standard knobby thread while the front is the aggressive MTB like tread (I am getting a similar tire for the rear rim ASAP) and it snowed 2+ inches...otherwise the middleweight is my go to snow bike.

    STRESS has been more than 1/2 my problem in the first place...it's been murder since summer. As for remembering, too late, I've been losing track of things for years and long before I was diabetic.

    Now I live on $730 a month and get SNAP (food stamps), had two relatives die this year (old age and leukemia at 94 and 65), my mother needs her spine fused again, and I've been decluttering about 15 years of stuff mostly on my own and I'm trying to avoid being nocturnal. I just don't have a lot of friends around anymore and my family is three dozen miles or more away and my brother in law almost lost an eye and has three kids and my sister to take care of and I have work to do here with the computer as well. There isn't so much to do as just dodge traffic.

    I know all of what you are talking about. I'm sorry but I'm resigned to dying someday, it's standard operating procedure (Mind you I don't want to for a while). This town is basically shop, eat or dodge traffic for the most part right now. Long nights aree bad for my glucose level AND my cognitive function, which is already chewed some anyway from mild-moderate autistic symptoms in the first place. I've needed a wife for over a dozen years to share the load as much as anything else, it's just a huge job.

    I get the A1C down and it goes up at certain times of the year and I work to do better on food choices each month. I'd love to get on my bike and run around but I haven't gotten past the point where drivers figure out how to drive again plus I rather have the new rim and better tires instaled with the new, unbent rim. The Rollfast is off the roads for all the snow and the fact that it needs to go back in ther shed.

    Not even wishing to be Debby Downer though. You are pretty much correct and kind.

    PS Machka, I drink a reservoir of water each day. When I did the two creatine clearances before they finally diagnosed me 17-18 years ago I gave them 26.9 liters (iin ONE DAY) and thank God I had a car with a trunk then! Ever since they first had me on lithium I've drank a ton of water, not hardly all soda, REAL WATER.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
    I'm not sure what to say to you, but you _have_ to get your blood sugar under control. It _will_ kill you. If anyone needs to be low-carb, it's you. Your A1c is twice normal. Get away from carbs in general and grains in particular. 'Healthy whole grains' are not anything of the sort. Eat a lot of fat. Eat a bit of protein. Keep your carbs to less than 25 grams a day. You'll have to get rid of the milk. If you need Vit D, it's probably one of the cheaper vitamins to buy. $10 will buy you a year's worth. If you feel like you have to have some dairy, then stick to full fat cheese, cream and pastured butter/ghee.

    Look, I think this type of diet is a good health direction for most people, but for you, it's your only chance. You can't just shoot insulin and hope for the best. You say you know 'what good food is'. Well, it's time to prove it.

    It takes about 6 weeks to get a reliable A1c reading. Take 6 weeks and give it a genuine shot. Keep your vegetables to green, leafy type things and use them basically as carriers of butter or cream. Eat some protein. Depending on your size, maybe up to 100 grams/day. Eat all the fat you want. Coconut oil, red palm oil, avocado, olive oil, nuts (macadamia & walnuts are good choices) are all fair game. Eat plenty of eggs and bacon. Don't shy away from sausage, hard salami or bacon. No grains, legumes, starchy vegetables or milk. If you _have_ to have fruit, keep it to berries, peaches, nectarines, and maybe a little melon. At the end of 6 weeks, report back and let us know how you feel and what your A1c is. It will be improved, I promise you. At first, you might not know what the hell to eat, you'll figure it out. You might not feel all that great in the 1-2 week time frame. By the time you're a month into it, you'll be feeling better than you do now.

    Honestly, you are metabolically broken and need help. This will help you.
    Last edited by Rollfast; 12-09-13 at 06:23 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by 10 Wheels
    They can't fix expansion joints, because they expand.
    Smile at Miles with a ROLLFAST!

  17. #267
    Senior Member GeorgeBMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
    Posts
    1,796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Machka View Post
    Maybe you need to look at the research and opinions from other countries.
    .... [snipped]
    Yes, I think you are right. I do not think the answers to the great questions will be coming from the US. The only entity capable of looking at all of the questions and seeing the big picture -- and coming up with the answers is the USDA -- and it is too mired down in politics to be effective. Half of that agency is there to protect and strengthen the US food industry and the other half is there to advise and protect the US consumer -- so how does it tell the beef industry that its product is killing people or tell the potato industry that ITs product is killing people? Meanwhile, it couldn't do that if it wanted to because the 'experts' who advise it come from those industries and are paid by those industries...

    So, the answer seems to be: "Shut up, eat your meat and potatoes, and take your statin"
    --------------------------------------
    bikes: 1992 Cannondale R500, 2012 Trek DS 8.5, 2008 LeMond Poprad

  18. #268
    Senior Member elcruxio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    mordor
    My Bikes
    2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
    Posts
    709
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac View Post
    It seems that the opinion of the 'public health professionals' is not held in very high regard anymore. In fact, it has seemingly become irrelevant.
    I can understand this. I reviewed the US food pyramid and it is not optimal.
    Also the healthcare system in the US is very strange in all it's peculiarities.
    But then again I think people also expect too much of doctors. Or general doctors at least. I'm dating a doctor and she can't give you a perfect diet plan. She is not a dietician and has very little knowledge about diets outside the general recommendations (which thankfully in Finland are very good). She has no intrest in such things and does not educate herself in them beyond minimum requirements. I believe that is the problem in general practitioners. They need to know so much about everything that they are masters in nothing. That is why a doctor should send a patient to a dietician (but again in the US more expenses, will the insurance cover it etc)

    You really have a very strange system...

  19. #269
    Senior Member GeorgeBMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
    Posts
    1,796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post
    I can understand this. I reviewed the US food pyramid and it is not optimal.
    Also the healthcare system in the US is very strange in all it's peculiarities.
    But then again I think people also expect too much of doctors. Or general doctors at least. I'm dating a doctor and she can't give you a perfect diet plan. She is not a dietician and has very little knowledge about diets outside the general recommendations (which thankfully in Finland are very good). She has no intrest in such things and does not educate herself in them beyond minimum requirements. I believe that is the problem in general practitioners. They need to know so much about everything that they are masters in nothing. That is why a doctor should send a patient to a dietician (but again in the US more expenses, will the insurance cover it etc)

    You really have a very strange system...
    Yes, few physicians have any education in nutrition -- they are taught a huge amount about the drugs used to treat a poor diet, but little about diet!

    So, yes, a physician SHOULD send his patients to see a nutritionist -- but not even they have the right answers... The answer you get depends on which camp the nutritionist belongs to -- and most of them are going to take the safe way out and stand in the safe DMZ in the middle...
    --------------------------------------
    bikes: 1992 Cannondale R500, 2012 Trek DS 8.5, 2008 LeMond Poprad

  20. #270
    Senior Member elcruxio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    mordor
    My Bikes
    2011 Specialized crux comp, 2013 Specialized Rockhopper Pro
    Posts
    709
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac View Post
    Yes, few physicians have any education in nutrition -- they are taught a huge amount about the drugs used to treat a poor diet, but little about diet!

    So, yes, a physician SHOULD send his patients to see a nutritionist -- but not even they have the right answers... The answer you get depends on which camp the nutritionist belongs to -- and most of them are going to take the safe way out and stand in the safe DMZ in the middle...
    Then again any nutritionist can give a basic outline of a healthy diet I would think. Staying in the middle not taking extremes (low carb, vegan, high carb etc) is in my opinion one of the best things a nutritionist can do. People can start from there and converge towards the extreme diets if they feel it necessary.

  21. #271
    Senior Member GeorgeBMac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    My Bikes
    2012 Trek DS 8.5 all weather hybrid, 2008 LeMond Poprad cyclocross, 1992 Cannondale R500 roadbike
    Posts
    1,796
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by elcruxio View Post
    Then again any nutritionist can give a basic outline of a healthy diet I would think. Staying in the middle not taking extremes (low carb, vegan, high carb etc) is in my opinion one of the best things a nutritionist can do. People can start from there and converge towards the extreme diets if they feel it necessary.
    I am not disagreeing that a nutritionist would benefit 90+% of Americans. But, I think they would be far less benefit to the people on this forum who are already well educated in nutrition and have specific questions that need answered. Or, advise on undertaking one of non-middle of the road diets that is not backed by the USDA. I.e., they can be helpful -- very helpful -- but they have limits. Most of them live in the box defined by the USDA.

    The nutritionist who I saw last month was helpful to me -- not because of her training as a nutritionist, but because, like me, she was a vegetarian and part time vegan (she did both for religious reasons and ate vegan 40 days each year). So, she had experience in it. But I have found most nutritionists to have only a superficial knowledge of vegetarian diets.

    I suspect a follower of the Atkins type diets would have a similar experience.

    So, if you branch away from the mainstream USDA diet -- which few experts actually agree with -- then you basically pick your expert and hope for the best...
    --------------------------------------
    bikes: 1992 Cannondale R500, 2012 Trek DS 8.5, 2008 LeMond Poprad

  22. #272
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,051
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy View Post
    It might be good to have a look at what public health professionals recommend circa 2013, sort of like looking at (ducks) IPCC reports:
    http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Gettin...5_Article.jsp#http://nutrition.stanford.edu/documents/Plant_based.pdf

    If you eat like this, don't smoke, and don't have genetic anomalies, you can avoid ever taking statins.
    This.

    And now compare with what health professionals were recommending in 1985.

    2013:
    * Choose lean meats and poultry without skin and prepare them without added saturated and trans fat.
    * Select fat-free, 1 percent fat, and low-fat dairy products.
    * Cut back on foods containing partially hydrogenated vegetable oils to reduce trans fat in your diet.
    * Cut back on foods high in dietary cholesterol. Aim to eat less than 300 milligrams of cholesterol each day.
    * Cut back on beverages and foods with added sugars.
    * Choose and prepare foods with little or no salt. Aim to eat less than 1,500 milligrams of sodium per day. Learn more about limiting sodium.
    * If you drink alcohol, drink in moderation. That means one drink per day if you’re a woman and two drinks per day if you’re a man.
    * Follow the American Heart Association recommendations when you eat out, and keep an eye on your portion sizes.
    1985 (American Heart Association) / 1987 (National Cancer Institute):

    * Reduce fat intake to <30% calories, saturated fat to <10% calories, cholesterol to <300 milligrams/day
    * Increase fiber to 20-30 g, include breads, cereals, pasta, and starchy vegetables
    * Include at least three servings of fruit and three servings of vegetables
    * If you drink, do so in moderation
    * Limit salt intake
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/48/3/888.full.pdf

    This source does not mention trans fats, oils or added sugars, but they were within the scope of public health professionals, the 1992 USDA Food Guide Pyramid had added oils and sugars under "use sparingly".

    Nowadays people tend to overcomplicate things. They've been getting substantially the same advice for 20-30 years (with minor changes in emphasis), and nothing changes because a substantial percentage of people does not follow the advice. Eventually this advice gets too boring and people start debating merits of Kitavan/Okinawan diet vs Inuit diet.

  23. #273
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,051
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fat Boy View Post
    Humans came across the Bering Strait into modern Alaska/Canada about 12,000 years ago. It has not been 'millenia'. In evolutionary terms, it's been a mouse fart. Any genetic adaptations that the Inuit have, you and I have as well.
    There is an easy counterexample.

    80% of Europeans can drink cow's milk all the way into adulthood. Very few native Americans can. The difference arose because Europeans domesticated cattle about 10,000 years ago and ended up selecting for the genotype that allows them to continue to produce the enzyme lactase past the first couple of years of life.

    They didn't even have to drink cow's milk, but they got selected for it anyway.

    Inuit, who had no choice but to get most of their calories from meat and fish, would have adapted far better and faster.

    P.S. "millennium" is 1000 years.
    Last edited by hamster; 12-09-13 at 09:46 AM.

  24. #274
    just another gosling Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Everett, WA
    My Bikes
    CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
    Posts
    8,132
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac View Post
    Good points... But:

    It seems that the opinion of the 'public health professionals' is not held in very high regard anymore. In fact, it has seemingly become irrelevant.

    That is, it seems the public (aka USDA) has tried to hold the middle ground -- but it has been denigrated and attached by BOTH sides for 15 or 20 years now. And, unfortunately, it has been unable and unwilling to defend itself. It just makes minor tweaks here and there and republishes the variation on a theme...

    Perhaps the best example of this is the "Great Nutrition Debate" hosted by the USDA 13 years ago. In it they essentially threw up their hands saying: "OK, we give up -- let the "Experts" debate their side and see who wins". Unfortunately, nobody won -- and the Great debate continues with one side denigrating the facts and theories put forth by the other side.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feCpP40ZHqI

    Unfortunately, the loser in this debate is the public who is being fed highly conflicting and contradictory information on what they 'should' be eating. The result of this is not only threads such as this one -- but a continuation of poor eating habits that result in increased chronic diseases and a health care system that cannot afford to treat all of the sick people that the poor diets are generating.

    I think that this rather sad situation is likely to continue until some impartial and well funded agency is able to do real research into the various claims and theories that are bandied about and actually come up with real answers...

    For myself: I am angry that I had to take it on myself to figure out what is a healthy diet and what isn't. I did my research and made my decisions... Was I right? The 'other side' says I am dead wrong and back their opinion with studies that I am not able to refute with my limited resources...
    ... After the many billions that have been spent on nutrition research, we --the people -- deserve better...
    This doesn't seem to be true to me from my research and contact with health care professionals. The evidence and recommendations seem very clear and unequivocal to me. Just read the links I posted.

    There has been an attempt by various people to create confusion in the diet craze marketplace and thus profit from said confusion. This has been an constant all my life. Back in the 60's, a common greeting was "What are you eating?" There were a zillion books promoting all sorts of dietary interventions. It's no different now, though the Internet has made this even worse. However the Internet has also made it much easier to ascertain the facts. Health care professionals don't seem confused about it at all. Though I don't have time to watch it all, the video you posted illustrates what I am saying very clearly.

    Ignore the faddists and go directly to the science. The science supports what the health care professionals are saying. Because the effect of diet on health is so complex and still poorly understood, it is fairly easy for obscurantists to muddy the waters and make money off that.

    There are two types of studies: observational and interventional. The latter are also called Randomized Control Trials (RCT). When RCTs confirm observations using Bradford Hill criteria for causation, one has a good scientific case for a dietary viewpoint. AFAIK, the only dietary pattern confirmed to have a strong beneficial effect on coronary heart disease (CHD) is the Mediterranean Diet pattern:
    http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1108492

    The fact that questions still remain as to why this diet pattern is so healthy in so many ways should not bring into question its essential benefit or prevent us from benefiting from its adoption. F.I. it has been observed that not only does this diet prevent CHD, it also seems to prevent skin cancer, mechanism unknown.

    One change I'm making is switching from safflower oil to canola, even if it is GMO. Then our fat sources will be olive (monosaturated) or canola (α-Linolenic):
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/69/5/827.full
    though we still eat a little butter. Note that though France has a Mediterranean coast, it is not a country associated with the Mediterranean Diet. Probably the butter and egg yolks.

    I should mention a conjecture of mine, which is perhaps more to the point of this thread:
    Whereas there are observational studies which associate certain lipid profiles with decreased CHD, due to ethical concerns there are no RCTs which show direct causation between various lipid levels and CHD. Thus statin recommendations aimed at preventing CHD are based on evidence which is not as clear or as scientific as we might like. There is evidence from dietary RCTs that preventing CHD is more complicated than having as an endgame the creation of a certain lipid profile which as been associated with a lower rate of CHD.

  25. #275
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Escondido, CA
    Posts
    2,051
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    A quick note since the words "dietary pattern" have been mentioned above.

    Just so you know, there are really only two dietary patterns that can be discerned through principal component analysis of food questionnaires in the United States. They are the "prudent pattern" and the "Western pattern". In essence, "Prudent pattern" (high in fruit, vegetables, whole grains and fish) is what happens if you follow the expert guidelines, and "Western pattern" (high in red/processed meat, french fries and refined grains) is what happens if you don't.

    Surprise surprise, compliance to the Western pattern is correlated with higher risk of CHD, diabetes, etc... (On the other hand, it's also negatively correlated with the tendency to exercise and positively correlated with the likelihood of smoking and average hours spent watching TV, which really complicates the analysis and makes it harder to separate individual effects of french fries, smoking and TV.)

    Americans generally don't follow the Mediterranean diet in large numbers, so, in the linked study, all tests of the Mediterranean diet pattern come from Europe.

    With that in mind, it's still interesting to consider this chart:


Page 11 of 18 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •